This public statement, signed by 52 internationally known scholars, was active on the information highway early in 1995 following several rather heated and negative responses to Herrnstein & Murray's The Bell Curve. It was first published in The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, December 13, 1994. An alphabetical listing of the scholars and their home institutions are given at the end of the statement.

Prologue

Since the publication of "The BELL CURVE," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -- "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

The idea that intelligence itself is some kind of indefinable quality that has no clear well-agreed upon definition is nonsense. It's always meant the same thing, defined above, and the word only became controversial when the science became relatively settled that some races were not as intelligent as others. (But if Whites were found bottom of the tree, I doubt anyone important or respectable would have cared.) complained

I listened to part of the show. Dr. MacDonald made the point that IQ is biologically/genetically determined as many studies have shown. For example, couples/families of high normal IQ adopt a child from an early age and rear the child in the exact same environment that a natural child of theirs and the adopted child will maintain the IQ of the biological parents of the child. Basically he was saying that "race" determines I Q and many studies over the years have established that.

It sounded a great deal like he was saying that the USA ought to only have white Europeans for the USA to have the best racial stock.

Another strategy will be to have people pay for their own children - if they cannot feed them, they should have any. Ending support and subsidies for bad moral could be helpful if we want less of it. Unfortunately, this will cut the Obama supporters in half within 30 years.

MacDonald is perfectly well-aware that Whites don't score highest on IQ scores. East Asians and Jews from South West Asia do.

I listened to this on youtube a few weeks ago and will have gone to sleep if IQ came up. This stuff isn't controversial except to doctrinaire race-deniers and politicians speaking publicly. All people seriously interested in biology and intelligence, including Fetzer who's book on the evolution of intelligence looks at the well-established race differences in intelligence - know that intelligence is real, highly heritable, and matters and is distributed unequally across races.

***

MacDonald is a normal guy on race, thinking that his race would be harmed if it were displaced by members of other races and disprivileged politically, economically and legally - as happens today to Whites in America. He would not be controversial if he were Black or Asian or Amerindian. But there's an idea that Whites should enjoy getting rolled over by other races. This is the only objective racism in the whole debate.

The problem with Blakeney's support for nationalism for all peoples that happen not to be White, eg. Palestinians, when coupled with his objection to nationalism for peoples that happen to be White:

It’s not only that their position is objectively racist, denying to all peoples that happen to be White what they defend and promote for all peoples that happen not to be, and that this undermines the claim that e.g. Palestinians or Iraqis have a moral ‘right’ to live free and unmolested in their homelands. But by insisting that our former ethno-states be transformed, against our known wishes, into ‘proposition nations’ defined by expressly universal standards, they create the ideological justification to intervene in other countries when these standards are challenged. Where loyalty to a people is replaced with loyalty to an idea that’s said to have universal truth, it becomes necessary to oppose alternatives to that idea, or that model of political order, wherever that opposition arises. So these objectively anti-White, anti-war activists, confound the second part of their activism by promoting their first.

***

The answer above is a variation on one I've posted many times on threads, some directly addressing Blakeney.

I offered a supplementary answer in thread of a John Friend blog about his interview of Kevin MacDonald:

And there is a second reason these personalities enjoy a higher profile than someone like you, say, who could speak just as eloquently as they on the rights of Palestinians but would also say that White peoples should enjoy the same rights. And this too was touched upon in your conversation with MacDonald; your stance on these issues would attract White people in droves, yes because it is the moral and fair one, but also because we really want our place in the sun, too. Blakeney and Anthony Hall and Kevin Barrett and Mark Glenn and Gilad Atzmon in contrast turn most Whites off because we resent their objectively racist double standards and clear bias against people like us. We may sympathise with their concerns about Palestinians and about the wars, but they can't ever win our support in large numbers. Nor should they.

I'm sure you are quite sincere in your concern with the Palestinian and peace issues. If you think my criticisms of Blakeney and co. have any validity may I suggest that Syrian Girl is a better fit for a serious anti-war or pro-Palestinian program. She recently appeared on the David Duke show where she supported the right of all peoples - including, expressly, White peoples - to control their homelands and enjoy freedom from unwanted colonization. She is nothing but useful to the anti-war, pro-Palestinain struggle, Blakeney and Atzmon et al fix its failure at the outset.

--- So Blakeney and co. are boosted over the likes of Friend because their politics are known to be unattractive to the White people that must be won over if all peoples are to get this Jewish boot off our necks.

Anders Lindman said:The guest talked about IQ scores. The problem is that IQ tests only show your ability to solve little puzzles, as Eckhart Tolle said. Intelligence is so much vaster than that.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yes, I think Kevin McDonald does not do a good analysis on the difference of race in his theory. His data does not take into account many variables such as time to assimilate and achieve feelings of security as well as the many different types of intelligence.

Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.

5. Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart”)

6. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”)

7. Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)

8. Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart”)

9. Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”)

I think MacDonald is correct in his assessment of Jewish theory of ethnocentrism and how it is applied. unevenly to the US vs Israel. Very good analysis of how out society has changed since WWII and the rise of the Jewish elite in a 180 turn from Communism to Neo Conservatism.

Being capable interpersonally, or at swinging a golf club or playing the flute is not intelligence. Gardner is redefining intelligence to apply to skills observed in as many diverse areas as possible. Any fucking idiot can see that.

He might just as well talk about,

Naturalist Musicality

Musical Musicality

Logical-Mathematical Musicality

and would, if musical ability had been found to be unequal among races contra official doctrine.

How does your statement above comply with Gardner's definition of intelligence?

Gardner defines an intelligence as "biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture."[40] According to Gardner, there are more ways to do this than just through logical and linguistic intelligence. Gardner believes that the purpose of schooling "should be to develop intelligences and to help people reach vocational and avocational goals that are appropriate to their particular spectrum of intelligences. People who are helped to do so, [he] believe[s], feel more engaged and competent and therefore more inclined to serve society in a constructive way."

He nods at intelligence to get us on side, ""biopsychological potential to process information ... solve problems" but muddies the water with, "activated in a cultural setting ... create products that are of value in a culture."

Beckham's spot-kicks, John Daly's golf swing, are not examples of high intelligence normally defined, however much they may awe us mere mortals, but they fit Gardner's crafted redefinition of intelligence - Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence - that he uses to replace ability.

We could all do that. I gave the example of using musicality for ability. Pick your own new word for ability and run with it.

I detected a straw man fallacymeasuredhin MacDonald's argument. He made the example of the 105 IQ black student who scrapes their way into an ivy league school because of quotas, then can barely make it through the program. MacDonald addresses black achievement as if that scenario is the pinnacle of black potential. My sister and I have IQ's measured well over 130. Despite my sister's race, my parents still had to take out loans to afford her tuition. The larger message here is addressed by John Taylor Gatto. The school system doesn't teach critical thinking methods. As a body of people, Americans judge hastily and scramble for ways to subtly weaken others to boost their own self-perception. We are constantly hearing logical fallacies, and fall for most of them. Our entertainment and political dialogue both drip with the same frantic insecurity. We're all suckers in America, but hey, your wrapper is much shinier than mine Mr. MacDonald. I guess that makes you a better follower. Congratulations

I was baffled by the focus here on IQ but this interview isn't the one Blakeney posted to youtube a few weeks ago and for which I was waiting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNusP5amKc

***

kjaze, I only skimmed thru the interview but distinctly heard MacDonald say that groups, specifically he said Blacks, have individuals at all levels of intelligence, but the relatively low mean intelligence of American Blacks is socially significant. This is his field, he just isn't going to make the kind of moronic error you claim he did. Yours is the straw man.

And if you're interested in race and claim to be a serious thinker, why try and claim that it's just a matter of skin colour, or shinier/duller wrappers? Your sister's of college age at least, are you still at kindergarten?

Nick Dean, I went back and listened to the podcast again. More closely this time, and you're right. K. MacDonald does note the presence of blacks of all intelligence levels.The subject matter is so inflammatory that I stopped listening and got lost in my own thoughts.

I thought I was beyond getting side-tracked from logic by my own bruised ego. Looks like I wasn't

Josh is a keen mind and a great respectful host, capable if engaging a guest in an amicable mode while trying to get at the key issues or contradictions at hand. I have appreciated this scholar Kevin for his courage to take on taboo issues, and to confront the nature of Jewish power and it's hypocritical standards regarding its own utopia ideal state with zero tolerance immigration versus the attitude maintained toward its plantations that it exploits. However, I think Joshvwas correct in honing in in the notion if universalism being a key goal in many aspects while this scholar seems to make an argument that white culture and race should be respected and protected just as any other state. To confirm to his own theory, he therefore believes the "Jews" are entitled to their own state, and by extension, so should all the varying nations. The problem with this notion is that it reinforces the very tribal attitudes at the cire if Zionism's malicious identity, that if creating so sacred if an I -you relationship that the tribe does not integrate into its various nation states or other organizations, but keeps an almost unholy allegiance to its tribe , often at the expense if humanity as a while. I agree that multiculturalism has backfired and is often weaponized for oligarchical interests, but at the same time, I think we should also strive for a universal ethic -- which must happen anyway because if the sheer math if the problem. I almost get a feeling that when Kevin discusses the white culture that was colonized by parasites that destroyed its culture , he makes an assumption we always had a static culture, and reminds me if the old man who says that the new rick and roll is rubbish and lines for the good music if old. Now days that translates I to baby boomers who hate rap, even as their kids can see virtue in dance, hip hop, trance etc. thus I think culture is a dynamic mechanism, and we must be careful how we are delineating things . Because a universalism is a noble goal in many respects -/ the world without borders -- but so is the respect of diverse cultures eroded by the mini-culture if McDobalds and Starbucks. We also need new lands to flee to for thevsanecreasin our founding fathers wanted three branches if government and sovereign states as checks to any monolithic tyranny. So I think Kevin had many great ideas but he encourages the very tribalism that he supposedly curses as the bane if western civilization. By being so adamant in protecting a special white culture which he assumes shares a common set of self-evident characteristics. Thus he believed Zistaelies should have a state to confirm to his theory , and one can predict that instead of humanity cultivating a common heritage that also respects individuality and diverse cultural traditions , he is forced to appeal to a kind of collectivism that would have to exist that would have to exist along with a kind of isolationism-- a breeding ground for future conflict but also ironically an expression of adopting the very same misguided identity politics that he so despises. Only instead of a Jewish cabal, it would be a wasp dream skin to a Normon Rockell painting , only that Anerica never existed except in propaganda. We need to celebrate the individual above all, but also embrace the powers if non- hierarchical socialistic models and cooperate with everybody on the a Earth for mutual goals. The problem with Zionists, as Ivsee it , is their ethnocentrism, and even if Kevin's respect for the white race is noble, he is missing the larger point. We need to transcend tribal notions while still maintaining the notion if a tribe , only now expressed through the Internet revolution as a global family. By eliminating the oligarchical grip, and getting rid if money all together, per the new Ubunto model started in South Afruca , we would not witness lazy people on the dole doing nothing, but passionate people able to self actualize and our productivity and quality if life will skyrocket.

Solfeggio, for you the main problem is Jews and their tribalism. For Kevin MacDonald other who want White peoples to survive, the main problem is the people who say that goal should not be pursued. If it cannot be pursued it will not be achieved.

The trends are set and fiercely protected: ongoing rapid race-replacement of White people everywhere with harsh social, economic and legal penalties for those who oppose the trend. It can only end one way if we follow yours and the Jewish tribalists' prescriptions.

Thank you for all the feedback listeners. I am the first to admit that I was new to some of the topics discussed by Prof. MacDonald, such as Human Biological Diversity. I do still maintain that universalism trumps particularism, especially with regard to Israel and her supporters. I think those academics involved in the White Nationalist movement have been excellent chroniclers of the ouster of the WASP faction of the ruling class in the West by the Zionist faction which predominates today. They have also identified some of the motives behind Multiculturalism accurately, in my opinion. Where I differ from them is when is comes to their political program and normative prescriptions which I believe to be untenable and overly idealistic. Multiculturalism has happened, for better and for worse. It is not possible to revert back to white-only homogenous societies, even if that is desirable. Blacks and Muslims are just as much victims of Zionist intrigue as Whites. We need to form strategic alliances rather than balkanize into ethnic enclaves as Oded Yinon and his acolytes would like.

Written once to Kevin Barrett, with updates and clarifications for out of context quoting bracketed,

That’s why Kevin Barrett’s [or Joshua Blakeney's or Anthony Hall's] endless and dishonest harping on historic examples of White/ Western / European aggression against others is also a shot to his own foot. Jews have been doing this already for decades, with a much greater claim [than Palestinians] on our consciences thanks to holo propaganda, and as a result Euro-man is psychologically incapable of making a self/Jew distinction, except to the Jews’ advantage (they’re allowed ethno-states, we’re not, etc.) But self/Jew distinctions are precisely what would be needed for Euro-man to see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with unbiased eyes and to realise that all these wars are for Israel/Jewry and not for us [or the universal values only we give a shit about]. It’s a mistake for Muslims [or their faux-universalist, Mrs Jellyby partisans like Blakeney] to adopt for PR purposes this Jewish strategy of bashing Whitey [including bashing White self-consciousness and mobilization], they’re never gonna beat Jews in the battle to induce White self-sacrifice. [Never. Not gonna fly!] Better that folks like Barrett [Blakeney etc.] should help persuade Europeans, including European Americans, to stand up for our own interests as peoples and recognise other peoples’ legitimate interests too.

MacDonald appears to be, just like Hitler and his acolytes, and Marx and his acolytes, yet another believer in polylogism, of which there are two main varieties, racial polylogism [Hitler], and class polylogism [Marx].

As Von Mises has observed:

"Marxian polylogism asserts that the logical structure of the mind is different with the members of various social classes. Racial polylogism differs from Marxian polylogism only in so far as it ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure."

"There is no need to enter here into a critique of the concepts social class and race as applied by these doctrines. It is not necessary to ask the Marxians when and how a proletarian who succeeds in joining the ranks of the bourgeoisie changes his proletarian mind into a bourgeois mind. It is superfluous to ask the racists to explain what kind of logic is peculiar to people who are not of pure racial stock. There are much more serious objections to be raised. "

"Neither the Marxians nor the racists nor the supporters of any other brand of polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes, races, or nations. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the non-Aryans, or the logic of the Germans from the logic of the French or the British. In the eyes of the Marxians the Ricardian theory of comparative cost is spurious because Ricardo was a bourgeois. The German racists condemn the same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and the German nationalists because he was an Englishman.........."

From "Human Action" by Ludwig Von Mises . Chapter 3: "Economics and the Revolt Against Reason - The Logical Aspect of Polylogism"

"Racial polylogism ... ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure."

MaDonald and other Evolutionary Psychologists say the opposite, that there exists a human nature and a whole range of characteristics common to human groups across cultures and time. See a standard list here for example:

http://condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm

It includes ethnocentrism, collective identities, territoriality and other attitudes relevant to the discussion.

These, unlike, Mises's exaggerated claims about Marxists and racists, are easily observed and rather non-controversial. But do German nationalists automatically dismiss all non-German influences, as Mises claims? When the most well-known German nationalist of all is widely known to have been influenced greatly by Englishmen like Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Italians like Benito Mussolini, and that Mises himself must have known this - we can say that Mises is bullshitting.

But then you are someone who cant tell his 'Austrian' liars from his Austrian truth-tellers, as we know. Indeed you are so bound up with the 'Austrian' liars you were even unwilling to admit that Rabbi Rothbard was talking nonsense when he said coins were not money and made at least six other basic errors in the short quote I posted here:

MacDonald's books and articles are for the most part available online. Give them a go if you're such a free thinker. Why rely on criticisms written before the fact? Is Austrianism a religious cult with deemed-infallible prophets? Don't answer.

Mises's praxeology eschews empiricism and as you now know doesn't have much predictive value - so it isn't like you'd be ditching one scientific approach for another willy nilly. You'd simply be swapping obvious nonsense for common sense.

MacDonald veers awfully close to outright racism and white supremacism here, and he showed a blinkered view on the genetics of intelligence and on how pervasive discrimination based on skin color can be. Even the adoption studies he cites are flawed, since there is so much influence from the mother on the development of the fetus. If a baby comes from a black poor mother who is perpetually stressed, that is going to negatively impact brain development and intelligence. In fact stress during pregnancy can lead to suppressed intelligence and increased athletic ability, which can explain a lot.